Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
  1. Home
  2. Search

Refine search

Refine search

Access:
Content type:
Publication date:
Apply   From and To filters
Subject: Show more
Journals Show more
Publishers: Show more
Societies Show more
Series: Show more
Collections: Show more

Actions for selected content:

Select all | Deselect all
  • View selected items
  • Export citations
  • Download PDF (zip)
  • Save to Kindle
  • Save to Dropbox
  • Save to Google Drive

Save Search

You can save your searches here and later view and run them again in "My saved searches".

Please provide a title, maximum of 40 characters.
Cancel
×

2 results

  • 8 - Debriefing and body recovery: police in a civilian disaster

  • from Part II - Debriefing: models, research and practice
  • Edited by Beverley Raphael, New South Wales Health Department, Sydney, John Wilson, Cleveland State University
  • Book:
    Psychological Debriefing
    Published online:
    06 January 2010
    Print publication:
    12 October 2000, pp 118-130

  • Summary

    This chapter provides a detailed discussion of Alexander's experience and research in the management of two groups of police officers involved in body-handling and recovery after a major oil rig disaster. It reports on the body-handling exercise following the Piper Alpha oil platform disaster. The chapter first describes the background to the exercise. Then, it addresses conceptual issues relating to the welfare provisions including debriefing made available to the personnel involved in the retrieval and identification of human remains after this disaster. The chapter also provides the empirical results of a three-year follow-up of these personnel. It offers some explanations for the interesting findings from this follow-up. The chapter further represents a critical appraisal of the results, with particular reference to defusing and debriefing. Finally, it highlights the primary conclusions that the study presented here appears to justify.

  • Critical Incident Stress Intervention After Loss of an Air Ambulance: Two-year Follow Up

  • Andrew J. Macnab, James A. Russell, John P. Lowe, Faith Gagnon
  • Journal:
    Prehospital and Disaster Medicine / Volume 14 / Issue 1 / March 1999
    Published online by Cambridge University Press:
    28 June 2012, pp. 15-19
    Print publication:
    March 1999
  • Objective:

    Following an air ambulance crash with five fatalities, critical incident stress debriefing (CISD) was provided for involved paramedics, physicians, and nurses. A study was conducted to evaluate the long-term effects of a critical incident with critical incident stress debriefing according to the Mitchell model.

    Methods:

    Six months following the incident, empirically designed questionnaires were mailed to all transport paramedics and directly involved medical staff, and a random sample of both nurses from the dispatch/receiving institution and paramedics from around the province. Twenty-four months post-incident, all members of the transport paramedics completed the Impact of Events Scale and the General Health Questionnaires.

    Results:

    There were no differences between groups on any scores, except for disturbed sleep patterns, bad dreams, and the need for personal counseling being greater among transport paramedics at one day. There was no correlation between how well the deceased individuals were known, amount of debriefing, and symptom severity. A trend was seen for those with pre-existing stress management routines to have less severe symptoms at six months (p = 0.07). At two years, 16% of transport paramedics still had significant abnormal behavior.

    Conclusion:

    CISD did not appear to affect the severity of stress symptoms, whereas having pre-existing stress management strategies may. These findings give justification for proceeding to a randomized, controlled trial of different levels of critical incident stress intervention.